Amica has inquired as to whether it has a duty to defend Gil against the allegations made by Ellina in her complaint. Notably, even if Amica is not ultimately obligated to indemnify the insured, it may still be obligated to defend him in a lawsuit. See Walk v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 1, 15 (2004) (“[A]n insurer’s duty to defend is distinct conceptually from its duty to indemnify, i.e. its obligation to pay a judgment.”). The duty to defend the insured is critically distinguishable from the duty to indemnify in that the duty to defend is based upon the facts alleged in a complaint, whereas the duty to indemnify is based upon liability. Id. at 15. As such, an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify. Back Creek Partners, L.L.C. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 213 Md. App. 703, 712 (2013).
…show more content…
(2) do the allegations in the tort action potentially bring the tort claim within the policy’s coverage? The first question focuses upon the language and requirements of the policy, and the second question focuses upon the allegations of the tort suit.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Pryseski, 292 Md. 187, 193 (1981). If there are any claims against the insured which are even potentially covered under the insurance policy, then the insurance company has a duty to defend. Brohawn v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 276 Md. 396, 407-08
(2) do the allegations in the tort action potentially bring the tort claim within the policy’s coverage? The first question focuses upon the language and requirements of the policy, and the second question focuses upon the allegations of the tort suit.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Pryseski, 292 Md. 187, 193 (1981). If there are any claims against the insured which are even potentially covered under the insurance policy, then the insurance company has a duty to defend. Brohawn v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 276 Md. 396, 407-08